Apparently Laughing During Jeff Sessions' Confirmation Hearing Can Get You Jail Time

In the latest proof that The Handmaid's Tale is not a dystopian fantasy but our actual reality, three protesters have been convicted on charges that they disrupted Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing. One, Desiree Fairooz, was convicted of unlawful conduct on Capitol grounds supposedly because she let out a laugh. Great news for the Democracy!

Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing. pic.twitter.com/p6lWzBVFRW

Fairooz, who was part of a Code Pink protest that was attending the confirmation hearing, reportedly laughed at the assertion by Senator Richard Shelby that Jeff Sessions' record for "treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented." Reminder: Sessions was deemed too racist for federal judgeship in 1986, and prosecuted black civil rights workers, so yes, that assertion might provoke an unintended laugh for a lot of people.

Ariel Gold, the campaign director of Code Pink, told the New York Timesit sounded more like a "reflexive gasp," and it didn't appear to disrupt anything in video of the hearings. But a US Capitol Police officer claimed Fairooz laughed "very loudly," enough that others turned around to look at her when she did it. So she's the equivalent of that annoying person behind you at a Broadway show who you forget about 30 seconds after they sneeze. Gotcha.

"I felt it was my responsibility as a citizen to dissent at the confirmation hearing of Senator Jeff Sessions, a man who professes anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT policies, who has voted against several civil rights measures and who jokes about the white supremacist terrorist group the Ku Klux Klan," said Desiree Fairooz in a statement. Fairooz, as well as two other activists arrested that day, each face up to a year in prison for their actions, which will be determined at a sentencing hearing in June.

It is unlawful for any person or group "to utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or to engage in any disorderly or disruptive conduct" on Capitol grounds "with intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb" a session of Congress or any hearing taking place. But the definition of "disruptive conduct" is historically vague. "'Disorderly conduct' has always been a charge the government can use to suppress speech acts which the government doesn't like," Elie Mystal, editor at Above the Law, told ELLE.com. "The check on the government's power is supposed to be the people, specifically a jury, refusing to aide the government in its attempt quash freedoms. But the reality is that there are an awful lot of people who don't believe in free speech. And there are even more people who only believe that they should have free speech, but nobody else."

Michael W. Macleod-Ball, an advisor to the ACLU on first amendment issues, told ELLE.com that if the outburst were disruptive enough to really disturb things, we likely would have heard about it at the time (or it would have appeared on the video). The conviction suggests "there was some evidence that this was a significant disruption," said Macleod-Ball. However, "unless the disruption was far more than anything anyone has talked about publicly so far, it seems like this is an unjust result. "

The worry over Fairooz's conviction is compounded by other behaviors the Trump administration has taken against dissenters, whether it's protesters, the media, or federal employees. "There are so many instances where there's more than a suggestion, there's the impression given of an intolerance toward dissenting views," said Macleod-Ball. "There's this pattern of behavior here which is very troubling, and I think that's why in this instance—again, we don't know the facts, we weren't there—but put in that context with all those predicate events, that's why this seems even more troubling than it might be under other circumstances."

That pattern shows no sign of easing up, and Fairooz's conviction marks an uneasy truth about peaceful protest. "It means that people who really want to protest this administration have to be willing to go to jail to do it," said Mystal. Not everyone is down for self-sacrifice, "but if you didn't think the Trump administration would require that level of commitment, now you know."

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
ELLE participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.